Subcategorization Of SC/STs Can Help More Backward Classes, But Guidelines Needed To Avoid Play Of Popular Politics : Supreme Court [Day 3]

While reserving judgment on the validity of subclassification within the Scheduled Castes(SCs) and Scheduled Tribes(STs) for reservations, the Supreme Court on Thursday (February 9) observed that subcategorization could be a measure to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach the more backward categories within the reserved classes.The 7-judge bench observed that if only certain castes are cornering the reservation benefits, it can lead to inequality.Justice BR Gavai illustrated :“ So taking for example a particular caste in Maharashtra. For the last 75 yrs, if they are taking reservations of 75-80% of the 13 % available reservation and there are some castes which have a sizable representation but they do not have even one or two per cent reservations, so would it not amount to perpetuating inequality amongst those classes identified under Article 341…”Justice Vikram Nath, another judge of the bench, observed, "Subcategorisation will aid others within that caste also to come up.. otherwise, only the one of the segment will get the benefits.”Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while concurring with Justice Gavai, cautioned that guidelines need to be established by the Court on subcategorization to prevent governments from favoring particular sections for political reasons.During an argument by an intervener, it was emphasized that allowing states to selectively pick and choose within the SC/STs would amount to discrimination.The CJI raised a pertinent question: “ This is a very valid point...suppose a state says out of 86 (castes) I am identifying only 7, you leave out others who are similarly circumstanced. Can the state do that?” He stressed the need for cautious implementation of reservations based on subclassification, warning against political appeasement that could undermine the intended purpose of uplifting the weakest through such reservations.The CJI expressed the necessity for the Court to establish criteria considering the arguments presented by both sides.“ Suppose in this case they have picked out only Valmikis and left out Mazhbi Sikhs, could the Mazbhi not have argued that we are as backwards as the Valmiki why have you left us?Or vice versa... which means therefore that those who are excluded can always challenge their classification on the ground that, look we fulfil all the indicia of backwardness... but the State can also rebut it by saying that we can classify caste by looking at the extent of backwardness. As Justice Gavai said, we want to confer benefits on the most backward, but by conferring benefits on the most backward, you cannot ensure that some who are most backwards are only given while others are left out, otherwise, this becomes a very dangerous trend in popular appeasement. Some state govt. will pick up a few castes others will pick the other caste, the idea is not to allow popular politics to play out in the grant of reservation.” The CJI opined that it was essential for the Court to now lay down certain criteria taking into consideration the different moot points that have been argued by both sides so far. “Undoubtedly there is some substance in what you all people are pointing out to us and we will have to tailor it by laying down criteria.”The Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also comprises Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma.The matter was referred to a 7-judge bench by a 5-judge bench in 2020 in the case State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The 5-judge bench observed that the judgment of the coordinate bench in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, which held that sub-classification was not permissible, was required to be reconsidered.In another part of the discussion on the interrelation between Caste and Backwardness, it was argued that untouchability alone has to be the test to determine subclassification. As per tan intervener, SCs constituted a class as per the decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and bifurcating SCs further would mean a violation of Article 14.Countering this, the CJI referred to para 82 of the decision in Indra Sawhney which states: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 21782. Collating the abovesaid views expressed by this Court in a catena of decisions as regards the relevance and significance of the caste criterion in the field of identification of 'socially and educationally backward classes' it may be stated that caste neither can be the sole criterion nor can it be equated with 'class' for the purpose of Article 16(4) for ascertaining the social and educational backwardness of any section or group of people so as to bring them within the wider connotation of 'backward class'. Nevertheless 'caste' in Hindu society becomes a dominant factor or primary criterion in determining the backwardness of a class of citizens. Unless 'caste' satisfies the primary test of social backwardness as well as the educational and...

Subcategorization Of SC/STs Can Help More Backward Classes, But Guidelines Needed To Avoid Play Of Popular Politics : Supreme Court [Day 3]

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags